I believe this is the expired draft being referred to: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1 Jun 2017, at 05:23, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I agree with this. If there's stable documentation on DMARC usage >> that we can cite, there's little value in adding our own, which is >> likely to end up diverging from the others. >> >> Does anyone think we *should* proceed with writing this? >> > > Hard to say. Maybe, with development of a DMARC on the standards track. > But I'd like to see some momentum first in general, and secondly a good > reason why this has to come from the IETF. Otherwise, some informative > text in appendices in either ARC or DMARCbis should suffice, rather than a > separate document. > > > Is there an expired or not yet posted draft on DMARC usage? I think > looking at any written text will help inform the decision. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > -- [image: logo for sig file.png] Bringing Trust to Email Seth Blank | Head of Product for Open Source and Protocols [email protected] +1-415-894-2724 <415-894-2724>
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
